OTTAWA - The huge Rio de Janeiro summit on sustainable development is drawing to a messy close and the end results mean Canada does not have to lift a finger to fulfil the meeting's vision.

Dubbed the Rio+20 conference to mark the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit that set out a global path to protect the environment, the Brazilian meeting was everything that summits have become in recent years: a colourful event with demonstrations, celebrities, cultural celebrations, business round tables, intense social media and riot police.

As far as content goes, however, the meeting produced a vision statement that contained plenty of good intentions but very few solid commitments.

Generally, countries committed to pay more attention to climate change, and increase aid for development. They also agreed to eventually develop long-term goals for sustainable development — global targets for both the environment and for eradicating global poverty.

She and other critics took Ottawa to task for weakening commitments on biodiversity of oceans and fossil fuels and blocking financial commitments to developing countries struggling to deal with climate change — all while loosening environmental protections at home.

Kent rejects the criticism, saying his opponents are out of touch with reality.

The summit was meant to spur action on sustainable development, to make up for the fact that almost all of the commitments made 20 years ago were not kept.

The 1992 summit — which also took place amid economic turmoil and a simultaneous deepening concern about the state of the Earth — left a legacy of hope and led to several agreements that forced governments to re-examine their policies. The 2012 version ended in widespread frustration.

“We can no longer assume that our collective actions will not trigger tipping points, as environmental thresholds are breached, risking irreversible damage to both ecosystems and human communities," said Norway's Gro Harlem Brundtland, former chair of the UN commission that spearheaded the concept of global sustainable development 25 years ago. "These are the facts, but they have been lost in the final document,"

The fact that the more than 130 countries in attendance could agree to a joint statement at all was hailed as a victory.

After months of negotiations among government officials to boil down hundreds of proposals into something manageable and meaningful, the final days of the talks leading up the summit saw the most tangible commitments removed from the text.

Despite widespread criticism from environmentalists and some delegations, government leaders opted not to re-open the text at the summit.

"The most compelling products of this conference are the models of new thinking" that will push countries into action, said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"We will be judged by whether we deliver results."

But some of the more optimistic activists, as well as some of the delegations, argued that the summit was not a total waste of time.

ONE — the anti-poverty group founded by U2 singer Bono — pointed out that environmental groups, businesses and governments used the summit venue to make hundreds of individual commitments for practical measures that work towards sustainable development.

Plus, governments agreed that access to energy for everyone is crucial for development, social inclusion and gender equity. They also agreed to propel talks on ocean biodiversity forward later this year. And they recognized the right to clean and safe drinking water.

"We must recognize that not everything is a failure," ONE's Tom Wallace wrote in a blog.